Re: Saruman's ring / "Great majority" when 80% or more?
Stan Brown
> On 2010-07-05 16:10:17 -0500, Morgoth's Curse said:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:10:44 -0400, Stan Brown
> > <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q0-SarumansRing
> >>
> > If I may offer a word of friendly advice, you should replace the
> > phrase "great majority" with "majority." (It is redundant and does
> > not add any significant emphasis.)
>
> Agreed.
Really? My impression is that I was a small minority, certainly
under 20%. I could describe 51% or 80+% as a majority, but "great
majority" connotes more than a simple majority. "Great majority'
could describe 80+% but could not, I think you'll agree, describe
51%.
I hope this doesn't sound defensive. I agree with Mark Twain that
the difference between the right word and the nearly right word is
the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug, but I'd
like to be convinced that "great majority" is not the right word.
I'm xposting to alt.usage.english for some thoughts on whether
"great" in "great majority" is indeed redundant when the majority is
on the order of 80+%.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
the Omrud
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:33:30 -0500, Bill O'Meally wrote:
>> On 2010-07-05 16:10:17 -0500, Morgoth's Curse said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:10:44 -0400, Stan Brown
>>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q0-SarumansRing
>>>>
>>> If I may offer a word of friendly advice, you should replace the
>>> phrase "great majority" with "majority." (It is redundant and does
>>> not add any significant emphasis.)
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Really? My impression is that I was a small minority, certainly
> under 20%. I could describe 51% or 80+% as a majority, but "great
> majority" connotes more than a simple majority. "Great majority'
> could describe 80+% but could not, I think you'll agree, describe
> 51%.
>
> I hope this doesn't sound defensive. I agree with Mark Twain that
> the difference between the right word and the nearly right word is
> the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug, but I'd
> like to be convinced that "great majority" is not the right word.
>
> I'm xposting to alt.usage.english for some thoughts on whether
> "great" in "great majority" is indeed redundant when the majority is
> on the order of 80+%.
I'm a school governor - we are currently working on our Self Evaluation
Form, in preparation for Ofsted. We've been advised to use Ofsted's
language, which includes these definitions:
97–100% Vast/overwhelming majority or almost all
80–96% Very large majority, most
65–79% Large majority
51–64% Majority
35–49% Minority
20–34% Small minority
4–19% Very small minority, few
0–3% Almost no/very few
--
David
Morgoth's Curse
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:33:30 -0500, Bill O'Meally wrote:
>> On 2010-07-05 16:10:17 -0500, Morgoth's Curse said:
>>
>> > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:10:44 -0400, Stan Brown
>> > <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q0-SarumansRing
>> >>
>> > If I may offer a word of friendly advice, you should replace the
>> > phrase "great majority" with "majority." (It is redundant and does
>> > not add any significant emphasis.)
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>Really? My impression is that I was a small minority, certainly
>under 20%. I could describe 51% or 80+% as a majority, but "great
>majority" connotes more than a simple majority. "Great majority'
>could describe 80+% but could not, I think you'll agree, describe
>51%.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/majority
ma·jor·i·ty (m-jôr-t, -jr-)
n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties
1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.
2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an
election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.
3. The political party, group, or faction having the most power by
virtue of its larger representation or electoral strength.
4. Law The status of having reached full legal age, with attendant
rights and responsibilities.
5. The military rank, commission, or office of a major.
6. Obsolete The fact or state of being greater; superiority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French majorité, from Medieval Latin mirits, from Latin mior,
greater; see meg- in Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: When majority refers to a particular number of votes, it
takes a singular verb: Her majority was five votes. His majority has
been growing by 5 percent every year. When it refers to a group of
persons or things that are in the majority, it may take either a
singular or plural verb, depending on whether the group is considered
as a whole or as a set of people considered individually. So we say
The majority elects (not elect) the candidate it wants (not they
want), since the election is accomplished by the group as a whole; but
The majority of the voters live (not lives) in the city, since living
in the city is something that each voter does individually. · Majority
is often preceded by great (but not by greater) in expressing
emphatically the sense of "most of": The great majority approved. The
phrase greater majority is appropriate only when considering two
majorities: He won by a greater majority in this election than in the
last.
The term great in this case merely adds emphasis which is
unnecessary unless you are taking a poll. I contend that it is
redundant in this context and that the term majority is sufficient. It
is obviously your FAQ. however, and it is a trivial matter at best. I
am sure that no one will mind if you retain the phrase. :)
Morgoth's Curse
Stan Brown
>
> On 06/07/2010 02:00, Stan Brown wrote:
> > I'm xposting to alt.usage.english for some thoughts on whether
> > "great" in "great majority" is indeed redundant when the majority is
> > on the order of 80+%.
>
> I'm a school governor - we are currently working on our Self Evaluation
> Form, in preparation for Ofsted. We've been advised to use Ofsted's
> language, which includes these definitions:
>
> 80?96% Very large majority, most
> 65?79% Large majority
> 51?64% Majority
> 35?49% Minority
> 20?34% Small minority
> 4?19% Very small minority, few
> 0?3% Almost no/very few
Thanks! Perhaps, following hat scale, I should use "most" and eschew
any phrase involving "majority".
Troels Forchhammer
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
> I'm a school governor - we are currently working on our Self
> Evaluation Form, in preparation for Ofsted. We've been advised to
> use Ofsted's language, which includes these definitions:
There is, to my mind, something immensely charming about a group in
which a discussion so quickly turn to the finer points of how to
express different degrees of majority ;-)
In my daily life I work with statistics, and I can't help noticing that
an ordinary 95% confidence interval for the ratio of posters who
disagree with Stan's position (based on a sample in which 4 out of 6
disagree -- this being simply the first six to occur to me) is between
22.2% and 95.7% With an oberved ratio of 2/3 we need a sample size of
30 before it is more than 95% certain that it is a majority of an
infinite population . . .
If we were to take a vote on the matter, I would be surprised if we
would be able to reject the hypothesis that the number of people (in an
infinite population) who agree with Stan is greater than or equal to
the number of people who disagree. So perhaps the discussion of how
large the majority is is . . . not all that important ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not
imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown.
- Carl Sagan
Morgoth's Curse
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:A0BYn.94289$YG4....@newsfe10.ams2>
>the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> I'm a school governor - we are currently working on our Self
>> Evaluation Form, in preparation for Ofsted. We've been advised to
>> use Ofsted's language, which includes these definitions:
>
>There is, to my mind, something immensely charming about a group in
>which a discussion so quickly turn to the finer points of how to
>express different degrees of majority ;-)
>
>In my daily life I work with statistics, and I can't help noticing that
>an ordinary 95% confidence interval for the ratio of posters who
>disagree with Stan's position (based on a sample in which 4 out of 6
>disagree -- this being simply the first six to occur to me) is between
>22.2% and 95.7% With an oberved ratio of 2/3 we need a sample size of
>30 before it is more than 95% certain that it is a majority of an
>infinite population . . .
>
>If we were to take a vote on the matter, I would be surprised if we
>would be able to reject the hypothesis that the number of people (in an
>infinite population) who agree with Stan is greater than or equal to
>the number of people who disagree. So perhaps the discussion of how
>large the majority is is . . . not all that important ;-)
Or you could save yourself all of that trouble and simply assume that
Morgoth's Curse is always right. ;-)
Morgoth's Curse
the Omrud
> In message<news:A0BYn.94289$YG4....@newsfe10.ams2>
> the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> I'm a school governor - we are currently working on our Self
>> Evaluation Form, in preparation for Ofsted. We've been advised to
>> use Ofsted's language, which includes these definitions:
>
> There is, to my mind, something immensely charming about a group in
> which a discussion so quickly turn to the finer points of how to
> express different degrees of majority ;-)
I think we've found our strapline
AUE: The charming newsgroup.
> In my daily life I work with statistics, and I can't help noticing that
> an ordinary 95% confidence interval for the ratio of posters who
> disagree with Stan's position (based on a sample in which 4 out of 6
> disagree -- this being simply the first six to occur to me) is between
> 22.2% and 95.7% With an oberved ratio of 2/3 we need a sample size of
> 30 before it is more than 95% certain that it is a majority of an
> infinite population . . .
>
> If we were to take a vote on the matter, I would be surprised if we
> would be able to reject the hypothesis that the number of people (in an
> infinite population) who agree with Stan is greater than or equal to
> the number of people who disagree. So perhaps the discussion of how
> large the majority is is . . . not all that important ;-)
That's easy for your to say.
--
David
Michael Ikeda
news:Xns9DAED94C...@130.133.4.11:
>
> In my daily life I work with statistics, and I can't help
> noticing that an ordinary 95% confidence interval for the ratio
> of posters who disagree with Stan's position (based on a sample
> in which 4 out of 6 disagree -- this being simply the first six
> to occur to me) is between 22.2% and 95.7% With an oberved
> ratio of 2/3 we need a sample size of 30 before it is more than
> 95% certain that it is a majority of an infinite population . .
> .
Another problem is that the posters to the particular discussion in
question are an entirely self-selected sample. Trying to generalize
from the specific posters to any substantially larger population is
therefore extremely risky regardless of the actual number of posters.
Peter Moylan
> If we were to take a vote on the matter, I would be surprised if we
> would be able to reject the hypothesis that the number of people (in an
> infinite population) who agree with Stan is greater than or equal to
> the number of people who disagree. So perhaps the discussion of how
> large the majority is is . . . not all that important ;-)
In an infinite population, even a small minority can rustle up a
respectable amount of support.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
CDB
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> I'm a school governor - we are currently working on our Self
>> Evaluation Form, in preparation for Ofsted. We've been advised to
>> use Ofsted's language, which includes these definitions:
>
> There is, to my mind, something immensely charming about a group in
> which a discussion so quickly turn to the finer points of how to
> express different degrees of majority ;-)
>
> In my daily life I work with statistics, and I can't help noticing
> that an ordinary 95% confidence interval for the ratio of posters
> who disagree with Stan's position (based on a sample in which 4 out
> of 6 disagree -- this being simply the first six to occur to me) is
> between
> 22.2% and 95.7% With an oberved ratio of 2/3 we need a sample size
> of 30 before it is more than 95% certain that it is a majority of an
> infinite population . . .
>
> If we were to take a vote on the matter, I would be surprised if we
> would be able to reject the hypothesis that the number of people
> (in an infinite population) who agree with Stan is greater than or
> equal to the number of people who disagree. So perhaps the
> discussion of how large the majority is is . . . not all that
> important ;-)
>
Jerry Friedman
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:33:30 -0500, Bill O'Meally wrote:
> > On 2010-07-05 16:10:17 -0500, Morgoth's Curse said:
>
> > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:10:44 -0400, Stan Brown
> > > <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > >>http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q0-SarumansRing
>
> > > If I may offer a word of friendly advice, you should replace the
> > > phrase "great majority" with "majority." (It is redundant and does
> > > not add any significant emphasis.)
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Really? My impression is that I was a small minority, certainly
> under 20%. I could describe 51% or 80+% as a majority, but "great
> majority" connotes more than a simple majority. "Great majority'
> could describe 80+% but could not, I think you'll agree, describe
> 51%.
>
> I hope this doesn't sound defensive. I agree with Mark Twain that
> the difference between the right word and the nearly right word is
> the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug, but I'd
> like to be convinced that "great majority" is not the right word.
>
> I'm xposting to alt.usage.english for some thoughts on whether
> "great" in "great majority" is indeed redundant when the majority is
> on the order of 80+%.
To me, "great majority" is different from just plain "majority". As
you say, it's a bigger percentage. I'm not sure where the limit is,
but maybe 70% or 75%.
--
Jerry Friedman
Troels Forchhammer
Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Another problem is that the posters to the particular discussion in
> question are an entirely self-selected sample. Trying to generalize
> from the specific posters to any substantially larger population is
> therefore extremely risky regardless of the actual number of posters.
I am certainly not prepared to do a thorough stastistical analysis of
the whole problem ;-) But I don't doubt that there are additional
problems that would, in a proper analysis, lower the confidence even
further (making any confidence interval even wider). The point I wanted
to make was merely that we should refrain from making any inferences
from the expressions of opinion in a particular thread to a wider
audience.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein